Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think people are thinking about Canada and not a new continent. Has anyone taken into account that this new continent (canada) may be split into multiple countries? South America is split into multiple countries some richer than others so there's a high possiblity than one of the Canadian countries may be as rich or richer than Brazil. I'd say the countries that the European dominated countries (French or British mainly) would be very prosperous though I wouldn't think it would be on par with the united states maybe more like a bigger version of New Zealand. Other countries (if there is any) would be less prosperous maybe comparable to Mexico.
Also people are talking about European settlements but how would the natives react to this? Like in Asia (I think japan actually) rapidly developed its economy so all of this should be taken into account.
The hypothetical question was Canada, not an entirely new continent with new countries, and even so, Canada is much wealthier than any South American country, while the wealthiest in Latin America, Chile, is hardly 'tropical'.
The hypothetical question was Canada, not an entirely new continent with new countries, and even so, Canada is much wealthier than any South American country, while the wealthiest in Latin America, Chile, is hardly 'tropical'.
what? Yes but if/when the Europeans discovered Canada in the pacific (a new continent) what makes you think that it would be called Canada and stay as one country??? Also I know Canada is wealthier than latin America and trying to say in this scenerio Canada may be comparable to south america.
He/she did not specify a specific group of people (Europeans), therefore, the question applies to humanity in general. You seem to be answering an entirely different question: "Do you think Canada would be easier for large-scale European colonization if it was tropical?"
The fact that even today, with all the technological advantages of the 21st century, the vast majority of Canadians still live within a few hundred kilometers of the US border, speaks volumes. So while it is true that tropical forests such as the Amazon are a barrier to settlement, they are far less formidable a barrier than Arctic Canada and the Siberian tundra. After all, jungles were much more extensive in southern India, central America and South-east Asia, where indigenous civilisations nevertheless flourished for several centuries.
He/she did not specify a specific group of people (Europeans), therefore, the question applies to humanity in general. You seem to be answering an entirely different question: "Do you think Canada would be easier for large-scale European colonization if it was tropical?"
Yes yes. I answered that already. No, I don't think it would. For dhdh or deneb78, sure, but for people in general, no.
I'm focusing on the European colonization mostly because some speculate that Canada could have 100 million people if it would be in the tropics, but as most of the population in North America are descendants from European immigrants or imported slaves, I think it's important.
I guess that tropical Canada would have maybe 15-20 million people today. But I'm speculating as much as everybody else.
Maybe you should post this in the history forum. They like talking about alternative history and things like that. Plus they wouldn't be as prejudice with the climate type.
He/she did not specify a specific group of people (Europeans), therefore, the question applies to humanity in general. You seem to be answering an entirely different question: "Do you think Canada would be easier for large-scale European colonization if it was tropical?"
Looking at European-colonized countries around the world, the European colonization plays a much bigger role in the eventual population than the indigenous cultures. The indigenous population of the U.S. circa 1500 was in the neighborhood of Canada's present-day population. There's no reason to assume that the "Amazonian Inuit" would develop a great civilization with a huge population, though at the same time there is no reason to assume they would not.
Quote:
The fact that even today, with all the technological advantages of the 21st century, the vast majority of Canadians still live within a few hundred kilometers of the US border, speaks volumes. So while it is true that tropical forests such as the Amazon are a barrier to settlement, they are far less formidable a barrier than Arctic Canada and the Siberian tundra. After all, jungles were much more extensive in southern India, central America and South-east Asia, where indigenous civilisations nevertheless flourished for several centuries.
"Thriving" is a debatable label, but it's not as if civilization in the Amazon was much more advanced than it was in Siberia. Most of the civilizations you mentioned thrived in tropical wet and dry climates, not tropical rainforest climates. As for the Canadian population, I would submit that it is dictated by economics much more so than climate. The Great Lakes are a much better choice for a European colony than the Great Slave Lake because there is easier access. Farming and agriculture took care of the rest of the population distribution. In modern times you could build a city just about anywhere, but why go to all the trouble of creating a new big city when you have big cities that have already been established? That is why these historical factors of settlement are still with us.
Does climate play a role? Sure, but it's a secondary factor. Look at the big populations of some Siberian cities as a counterexample. Besides, as I've already pointed out, a huge population can lead to its own problems, and high population density is a turn-off to a lot of people.
If I had to guess what Canada's population would be now in the OP's scenario, I think it would be comparable to Australia's population now, but with the addition of American immigrants it would be somewhat higher. Perhaps somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 million. Incidentally, that's about what it is right now.
Does climate play a role? Sure, but it's a secondary factor. Look at the big populations of some Siberian cities as a counterexample. Besides, as I've already pointed out, a huge population can lead to its own problems, and high population density is a turn-off to a lot of people.
The Siberian cities grew big mostly by intervention of the Soviet government, which thought it was worthwhile to have a large population in the hinterland. Those areas are going through a large decline currently.
In the 1960s and 1970s, leaders in Moscow decided to launch giant industrial projects in Siberia. Planners sought to create permanent pools of labor to exploit the region’s rich natural resources, to produce a more even spread of industry and population across the Russian Federation, and to conquer, tame, and settle Siberia’s vast and distant wilderness areas. This time, new workers were lured to Siberia with higher wages and other amenities–-rather than coerced there and enslaved–-at great (but hidden) cost to the state.
The Siberian cities grew big mostly by intervention of the Soviet government, which thought it was worthwhile to have a large population in the hinterland. Those areas are going through a large decline currently.
The population decline in most places has slowed down quite a bit, and some have a stable population. Also, governments have influenced population for at least the past millennium. The point is that the climate was no barrier to settlement, whether government-driven or privately-driven.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
